PRIVET PRIZE. 



707 



sible to impose effectual restiaints upon farces called 

 into action by motives so sordid. Considering the 

 injustice and immorality of privateering, the many 

 seamen thrown by it into prisons, and thus taken 

 from the service of their country,* and the distress 

 thus brought upon their families; the difficulty of 

 procuring sailors to man the fleets, or defend the 

 coasts, when they are lured by the hope of plunder 

 to embark in long and distant cruises ; the ill will 

 and jealousy excited in neutral nations by the vexa- 

 tion to which their commerce is exposed from it ; 

 the murders and piracies which it inevitably pro- 

 duces, and the injury done to the morals of the com- 

 munities engaged in it, it is strange that the 

 example of the United States of America in their 

 treaty with Prussia, in 1785, has not been more 

 imitated. That treaty provides that " neither of the 

 contracting powers shall grant or issue any commis- 

 sion to any private armed vessels, empowering them 

 to take or destroy trading vessels." (For the laws 

 respecting captures by armed vessels, whether pub- 

 lic or private, see Prize.) 



PRIVET (ligustrum vulgare) ; a European shrub, 

 allied to the lilac. The leaves are lanceolate, entire, 

 opposite, and smooth ; the flowers small, white, 

 slightly odorous, having two stamens and a single 

 style, and disposed in terminal panicles. The ber- 

 ries are usually small and globular, purple or black, 

 and remain on the tree during the winter season. 



PRIVILEGE ; any kind of right, prerogative or 

 advantage attached to a certain person, condition 

 or employment, exclusive of others. Priviligium 

 canonis is the protection of a Roman Catholic clergy- 

 man, by which every person is excommunicated 

 who strikes him. The pope only can suspend this 

 excommunication. The word privileged was very 

 frequently used in the French republic, as the odious 

 privileges of certain orders mainly contributed to 

 produce the revolution. 



PRIVY COUNCIL in Great Britain. (See 

 Council, Privy.} Orders in council are orders issued 

 by the king, by and with the advice of his privy 

 council, either by virtue of the royal prerogative, 

 and independently of any act of parliament, or by 

 virtue of such act, authorizing the king 'in council 

 to modify or dispense with certain statutory provi- 

 sions, which it may be deemed expedient, in parti- 

 cular conjunctures, to alter or suspend. When a 

 permission is to be given to a particular indivi- 

 dual, it is usual to grant it by license ; but orders 

 in council are of a more general nature, and contain 

 dispensations or prohibitions extending to a whole 

 branch of commerce. 



PRIZE. By the term prize is generally under- 

 stood any thing captured in virtue of the rights of 

 war (jure belli}. Property captured on land is 

 usually called booty, and is generally disposed of at 

 once by the commanding general, or reserved for 

 the disposal of his sovereign, who is accustomed to 

 bestow and distribute it according to his discretion. 

 Few rules are therefore to be found in treatises of 

 public law on the rights of war, in regard to cap- 

 tures on land. The conqueror, indeed, generally 

 respects private property from motives of policy or 

 clemency. He observes, or ought to observe, the 

 terms of capitulation, if there are any ; and, ordi- 

 narily, he does not give up any place which is con- 

 quered to pillage or sack. But property captured 

 in buttle of a general or moveable nature is com- 

 monly subjected to immediate distribution; and the 

 principal question which arises is how it is to be 

 treated upon recapture. Is it to be restored by 



* It is said that, at the close of the war terminated by the 

 peace of Amiens, there were 30,000 French nation ui Hrili li 

 prisons 



the law of postliminy (jus postliminii) to the ori- 

 ginal owner, or does it belong to therecaptor ? In 

 general, upon principles of strict law, if the capture 

 lias been absolute, and the possession complete by 

 the enemy, it is deemed his property, and the title 

 of the original owner is divested, so that he cannot 

 reclaim it. But most nations have introduced into 

 their own laws some modifications of this principle, 

 and, in regard to their own subjects, have given a 

 right of restitution to the original owner, upon his 

 making some compensation. For the most part, 

 however, these modifications are applied more 

 extensively to captures at sea than to captures on 

 land. In regard, to maritime captures, a very dif- 

 ferent course has been pursued by all nations, in 

 modern times, from that which governs in cases of 

 captures on land. As all nations have an equal 

 right to navigate the ocean, and to carry on com- 

 merce with each other, belligerents are bound to 

 respect the rights and property of neutrals, whether 

 navigating the ocean or engaged in trade in foreign 

 ports. The right of belligerents to capture the 

 property of their enemies on the sea is admitted, as 

 well as their right to prevent any frauds, or viola- 

 tions of the law of nations on the part of neutrals. 

 But these rights are limited, and must be so exer- 

 cised as not to intrench upon the independence or 

 rights of other nations. Now it is obvious that it is 

 extremely difficult, if not wholly impracticable, to 

 ascertain, with entire certainty, what ships and car- 

 goes sailing on the ocean, or found in belligerent 

 ports, belong to enemies, and what to neutrals. 

 Yet it is the duty of the belligerent sovereign, who 

 exercises the power of capture, to abstain from 

 seizing the one, while he may lawfully seize the 

 other. Some mode of ascertaining the character 

 and genuineness of each must therefore be devised, 

 in order to prevent the abuse of the power, and to 

 secure to neutrals a just protection. The belli- 

 gerent acts at his peril, and is responsible for every 

 abuse ; and, if the wrongs are at once flagrant and 

 frequent, they inevitably produce that state of 

 national irritation and national injury which are 

 the general causes of war. Hence arises the neces- 

 sity of instituting some tribunals to take cognizance 

 of maritime captures, to ascertain their validity, 

 and, after suitable proceedings, to pronounce a 

 decree of condemnation or acquittal. Accordingly, 

 in modern times, it is settled, as a part of the Jaw 

 of nations, that every belligerent has a right to 

 establish tribunals of prize, to examine into all 

 maritime captures, and judicially to decide upon 

 their validity. The final sentence, when pro- 

 nounced, is deemed the act of the sovereign, 

 deliberately adopted, and he thereby becomes 

 responsible to all foreign nations for its cor- 

 rectness. But this right would be of little prac- 

 tical value, if other nations were not bound, so 

 far as the property in controversy is concerned, 

 by such a sentence. Hence, as a corollary flowing 

 from this principle, it is another well-settled princi- 

 ple, that the courts of prize of the captors have 

 exclusive jurisdiction over all matters touching 

 captures made under the authority of their sovereign; 

 and the courts of other nations have no jurisdiction, 

 or authority to inquire into, or to adjudicate upon 

 them. And the sentence of a court of competent 

 jurisdiction once pronounced becomes conclusive, 

 and obligatory upon all the world. It changes the 

 property, and divests the former title of the owner, 

 if it is a sentence of condemnation ; and all nations 

 are bound to respect the new title acquired under 

 it. 



I. It being, then, a fundamental principle that, 

 i in matters of prize, exclusive inrisdiction belongs to 

 2 Y 2 ' 



